The hockey world's obsession with size is stupid

[Master P]

Size definitely matters but there are always exceptions to the rule.

For example

 

[LeHab]

NHL Forwards vs. Defensemen Height & Weight, 1917-18 to 2014-15

Interesting to see the dip in goalie height in the 80's - golden age of scoring race. We need midgets back in nets!

 

[mouser]

Interesting to see the dip in goalie height in the 80's - golden age of scoring race. We need midgets back in nets!

Darren Pang probably skewed that average height stat.

 

[charliolemieux]

IF you are that hung up on size, I suggest you take some time and watch some youtube clips.
One on Doug Gilmour, and the other on Theo Fleury.

oh and for S&G's Watch a clip on Wendell Clark who was 5'11" and took on the toughest guys in the league.

And maybe the best of all is Tie Domi. a guy who made his career fighting guys who may have a 5-8" or more Height advantage on him.

Hey I lived through the Burke era in TOR. I have seen first hand how the size counts mentality can make for stupid decisions.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

When the NHL's Lebron James comes down the road...revisit this thread and you'll understand why.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

IF you are that hung up on size, I suggest you take some time and watch some youtube clips.
One on Doug Gilmour, and the other on Theo Fleury.

oh and for S&G's Watch a clip on Wendell Clark who was 5'11" and took on the toughest guys in the league.

And maybe the best of all is Tie Domi. a guy who made his career fighting guys who may have a 5-8" or more Height advantage on him.

Hey I lived through the Burke era in TOR. I have seen first hand how the size counts mentality can make for stupid decisions.

Clark was more fragile than wet cardboard box...he averaged around 50 games/season his whole career and never played a complete season.

 

[Pieck]

If two players are equally good offensively and equally good defensively, but one is bigger than the other, who do you take?

(Trick question: I just told you they're equal)

 

[charliolemieux]

Clark was more fragile than wet cardboard box...he averaged around 50 games/season his whole career and never played a complete season.

He kept breaking his hands on guys heads.

HE was far from fragile.

HE would take out 2 guys with a single bodycheck.
HE would knock League Heavy Weights out with a single punch.

The last f***ing thing he was fragile.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

He kept breaking his hands on guys heads.

HE was far from fragile.

HE would take out 2 guys with a single bodycheck.
HE would knock League Heavy Weights out with a single punch.

The last ****ing thing he was fragile.

Why was he injured so much?

50 games a season is a weak fragile player, I do not care if he threw a big hit or won a fight... the aftermath proves he was a weakling cause he couldn't handle it physically.

 

[charliolemieux]

Why was he injured so much?

50 games a season is a weak fragile player, I do not care if he threw a big hit or won a fight... the aftermath proves he was a weakling cause he couldn't handle it physically.

He did play a full season.

And he was a wrecking ball. Now when you swing a wrecking ball around it is going to take some damage itself.
Go troll somewhere else.
YOU a flyers fan? Take Lindros and go for a nice long walk if you want someone fragile.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

He did play a full season.

And he was a wrecking ball. Now when you swing a wrecking ball around it is going to take some damage itself.
Go troll somewhere else.
YOU a flyers fan? Take Lindros and go for a nice long walk if you want someone fragile.

Yes, Lindros was fragile I am not jaded like you and pretend he was some "iron man" like Steve Larmer.

Clark played 18 NHL seasons and out of those seasons he could have played 1440 games but only played 793 games which is only 55%...hard facts prove he could not handle the rigors of the NHL and was a weakling even though he could dish it out. Accept facts, not urban myths after 28 years...he wasn't tough he was a kamikaze and hurt himself in the process, tough guys beat other down and obliterate their opponents with hits and play more than 55% of games after 18 years.

 

[DJJones]

Watching gaudreau play makes this an easy decision. Absolutely fantastic player but his size hinders him in a lot of ways.

You take the 6'3 guy every time if he matches production.

 

[charliolemieux]

Yes, Lindros was fragile I am not jaded like you and pretend he was some "iron man" like Steve Larmer.

Clark played 18 NHL seasons and out of those seasons he could have played 1440 games but only played 793 games which is only 55%...hard facts prove he could not handle the rigors of the NHL and was a weakling even though he could dish it out. Accept facts, not urban myths after 28 years...he wasn't tough he was a kamikaze and hurt himself in the process, tough guys beat other down and obliterate their opponents with hits and play more than 55% of games after 18 years.

DUDE, enough Ragging on Clark.
You may not like him for whatever reason, but the man was a warrior.
I watched him from his first step on Maple Leaf Gardens ice. Warriors get injured.
Are you saying Cam Neely was Fragile?

 

[puckpilot]

I think the original question is framed incorrectly or at least in a way that does't jive.

Let's take two players, exact same skills, skating, speed, agility, puck handling, vision, IQ, shot etc. Who's going to be the more effective player, the one that is 6'6 or the one that's 5'5? It's always going to be the bigger player.

Because if two players produce the same numbers, but are different sizes, then there must be a difference in their skill levels, whether it's IQ, speed, agility, vision whatever. The over all package a player brings to the table includes size.

The reason the NHL is and was skewed towards size was because in the past, drafting a player with size meant that even if the prospect didn't pan out all the way, they could still be turned into a 3rd or 4th line checker because of their size. A smaller player, if they don't pan out skill-wize, wouldn't have made a good 3rd or 4th line player.

And still, it's like they say, you can teach skill, but you can't teach size.

Now days, that perception is changing, but fact is, like the OP said, size affords lots of advantages when it comes to athletics. All things being equal means the larger player always has an advantage. The most obvious example of this is in the NBA.

 

[Newsworthy]

I don't think the world's obsession with size is limited to hockey.
Everyone seems to agree that size matters. I think maybe the fast food places are taking a bit but the customers probably prefer more. Supersize everything.
bigger is better.
however the world is going in the opposite way.
smaller cars. Smaller houses.
and you guessed it smaller hockey players.

 

[StoneHands]

I came into this thread thinking the OP was going to try to convince me that smaller players actually have some kind of advantage over bigger players. Then he goes on to say that bigger guys have longer reach, protect the puck better, take hits better, and don't get pushed around in the crease as much. I'm genuinely confused because it seems like even he knows if two players put up the same numbers the bigger player is probably better in other aspects of the game. HF at it's finest.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Not many people think he's a 1C now...

Yes they do. I’m not one of them.

 

[lamini]

If two players are equally good offensively and equally good defensively, but one is bigger than the other, who do you take?

(Trick question: I just told you they're equal)

Well, if they are equally good both defensively and offensively it means one of two things:

1) the bigger guy plays the game in a way his size doesn't give him any advantage

2) the smaller guy has an advantage in another area that negates the size advantage of the other guy.

In case 1) is true, they are same to me, in case 2) is true I take the guy that fits the way I want to play better.

 

[sleepers]

Funny how several posters use the hypothetical scenario of two players of equal skill but different height, the proceed to note how the bigger player is better due to increased reach, strength along the boards etc. If that's the case then they're not equal, are they? What kind of hypothesis is that? A kindergartners idea of skewing data perhaps.

Playing by those rules, we should add that the smaller player will in spite of loss of range and strength instead gain agility, speed and being able to cut by the edges quicker. I mean, give Kane a couple of inches and he probably wouldn't be as shifty as he is.

 

[beowulf]

I know I keep telling myself that size doesn't matter

It really comes down to how you use your size.

 

[LakeLivin]

NHL Forwards vs. Defensemen Height & Weight, 1917-18 to 2014-15

Interesting to see the dip in goalie height in the 80's - golden age of scoring race. We need midgets back in nets!

That data would be great but unfortunately it ends just about where I'd bet a shift in emphasis by the league began. As I previously mentioned, Aho slipped to the 2nd rd in 2015 draft, most suspect because of his size. I don't think that would have happened in 2017. And when I looked at the distribution in height of players drafted for the 3 years from 2015 to 2017, there was a noticeable shift down in height from year to year.

Things tend to go in cycles. I believe that size was overvalued in the NHL for a long time. I think that particular bias is in the process of a correction, with speed and skill now being emphasized. And it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere down the line, size actually becomes undervalued (but I don't think we're at that stage yet).

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

It depends on the systems being deployed and the system it is up against.

 

[Sugi21]

IF you are that hung up on size, I suggest you take some time and watch some youtube clips.
One on Doug Gilmour, and the other on Theo Fleury.

oh and for S&G's Watch a clip on Wendell Clark who was 5'11" and took on the toughest guys in the league.

And maybe the best of all is Tie Domi. a guy who made his career fighting guys who may have a 5-8" or more Height advantage on him.

Hey I lived through the Burke era in TOR. I have seen first hand how the size counts mentality can make for stupid decisions.

Nice list of short guys who were tough as nails but unfortunately they don't make players like that anymore plus that was a tougher era of hockey!!! Hockey is getting softer now so you ain't gonna see guys like that anymore since today's game is geared to helping and allowing the small guys to have success in today's game!!!

 

[Phil McKraken]

I guess could argue that the big guys don't age as well as the smaller guys since they have to drag around more weight. I don't have any comparables to back that up with though.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Let's say two players score 80 points. One is 6'3" 220 pounds, the other is 5'9" 180 pounds.

Everyone picks the first guy. Why? It makes no sense.

Yes, being bigger is an advantage. You have longer reach. You protect the puck better. You take hits better. You don't get pushed around in the crease as much.

Yet despite all these advantages you still produce the same amount of points.

Look at Ryan Johansen. Big but not physical. I honestly think if he was just as good at hockey as he is right now but 6 inches shorter no one would think he's a No. 1 center and absolutely no one would give him an 8x8 contract.

You answered your own question bud. Plus its not all about points anyway. If two guys produce the same amount of points, and the little guy is a better all around player, or has significantly better puck possession skills, then teams will pick the more rounded guy most often. It certainly isn't a universal truth that the big guy is always picked over the little guy.